Pastor Anthony Delgado’s bio notes, “a pastor and author from Southern California with nearly two decades of experience in Christian leadership and Bible teaching. He studied Christian Reason at Sterling College and holds an MABTS from Knox Theological Seminary.”
He wrote a series of articles about Nephilim, giants, and clowns which are all issues that are right up my alley. See my previous post Ken Ammi reacts to Anthony Delgado’s reaction to Wes Huff on Enoch, Nephilim, and Demons.
We will first consider What Does the Bible Say About Nephilim? wherein he notes:
The Nephilim in Genesis 6
Genesis 6:1–4 describes a time when “the sons of God” came to human women and had children with them, producing the Nephilim. One common interpretation is that “sons of God” refers to angelic beings who took on human form and cohabited with women, resulting in an unusual and powerful hybrid race.
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved in my book, On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.
However, there is no indication that, “angelic beings,” Angels, “took on human form.” Rather, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such is not their ontology—see my book, What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
His first bit of, “Support for this view comes from” is, “The Book of 1 Enoch — An ancient Jewish text expanding on Genesis, explicitly stating that heavenly beings produced offspring with human women.” Note that ancient is a subjective term since that text is surely ancient to us yet, it is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.
He added, “The Hebrew word ‘Nephilim’ — Possibly derived from nafal (‘to fall’), interpreted by some as ‘fallen ones,’ referring to fallen angels.” That Nephilim refers to fallen Angels does not even make a faint blip on the historical radar of who took which view: it is understood to refer to the unusual and powerful hybrid race produced by Angels mating with human women.
He notes, “Some understand ‘sons of God’ as referring to human rulers or descendants of Seth marrying outside their covenant community.” The former is a very early view, but is also one of the least historically notable ones. The latter is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice.
Pastor Anthony Delgado references, “Several difficulties arise when interpreting the Nephilim passages”:
“The Nature of Angels — Matthew 22:30 suggests angels do not marry, leading some to reject the idea of angelic-human offspring.”
Note his qualifying term in that he infers a suggestion. Well, there is no such implication in that verse (which he did not quote). Note that his is a generically all-encompassing statement, “angels do not marry.”
Yet, Jesus’ statement was very detailed, very nuanced, He employed qualifying terms, “the angels of God in heaven.” So, not all Angels at all times in all places but the loyal ones, “of God” and “in heaven” which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
The next difficulty is, “Chronological Questions — Genesis 6 places the Nephilim before the flood, yet Numbers 13:33 describes them after the flood, raising questions about continuity.”
The problem is that he is dealing in citations but citations only tell you were to find a statement and does not include key hermeneutical questions such as: who said it, why was it stated, was it accurate, what was the reaction to it, etc., etc., etc.
Thus, stating, “Numbers 13:33 describes them after the flood” is indeed, “raising questions about continuity” since what the pastor did not tell us is that he is appealing to one unreliable sentence from an unreliable evil report by some unreliable guys whom God rebuked: it was merely a fear-mongering, scare-tactic tall-tale.
Next up is, “Textual Ambiguity — The Bible’s sparse details leave room for multiple explanations” and yet, again, there has always been one main view.
Pastor Anthony Delgado next writes of, “Nephilim, Giants, and the Canaanite Context” which calls into question: What is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word, “giants” in English Bibles? What is his usage? Do those two usages agree?
Those questions are specially important since, hint, biblically contextually, “Nephilim, Giants” means, “Nephilim, Nephilim.”
He goes back to Num 13:33 and notes that it, “records Israelite spies describing the inhabitants of Canaan as giants, calling them descendants of the Nephilim.” That is more specific, since he tells us what is recorded at the citation and yet, he misrepresented the narrative.
That verse is not about, “Israelite spies” in general, “describing the inhabitants of Canaan as giants, calling them descendants of the Nephilim.” Rather, there were 12 spies but that verse is what the unreliable ones whom God rebuked merely asserted—including something about whatever giants references.
He does note, “Some scholars suggest the spies exaggerated out of fear, while others see this as evidence that the Nephilim’s lineage persisted in some form. In either case, the association of the Nephilim with intimidating size and strength is consistent across biblical references.”
Indeed, and I quote scholars who suggest exaggeration (at the very least) in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
As for, “evidence that the Nephilim’s lineage persisted in some form” well, that is illogical, ill-bio-logical, and ill-theo-logical: he can only appeal to one single unreliable verse and such a view implies that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
As for, “the association of the Nephilim with intimidating size and strength is consistent across biblical references”: there is literally zero indication of any such thing.
Note that we now appear to have a window in to his usage of giants since he referenced (alleged) intimidating size. Thus, the pastor’s usage of giants does not agree with the English Bibles’ usage since the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (does not even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
Incidentally, the dirty little secret is that since we do not have reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
He ends that article with, “Bible Verses About Nephilim”:
Genesis 6:1–2, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”
Genesis 6:3, “Then the Lord said, ‘My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.’”
Genesis 6:4, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”
Numbers 13:32, “So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land that they had spied out, saying, ‘The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height.’”
Numbers 13:33, “And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”
Job 1:6, “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.”
Job 38:7, “When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
Jude 1:6, “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day.”
2 Peter 2:4, “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment.”
Colossians 2:15, “He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.”
Recall that Pastor Anthony Delgado thinks that, “The Hebrew word ‘Nephilim’” is, “referring to fallen angels.”
In any case, that list only included two verses about Nephilim: the reliable record in Gen 6:4 and the unreliable tall-tale in Num 13:33—and that Jude references that which I term the Gen 6 affair.
Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there is only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible. So, if they were not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we have no idea to what sin they are referring.
We next move on to the article Did giants literally exist according to the Bible? wherein he also does not elucidate his usage of the word giants.
He noted, “Giants in the Old Testament…giants as a reality woven into Israel’s story” and appeals to that, “Genesis 6:1–4 introduces the Nephilim, described as the offspring of ‘the sons of God’ and ‘the daughters of men.’” Thus, in this article, he rightly identifies Nephilim not as Angels but as their offspring.
He referred to giants, then to Nephilim and then back to giants which makes reading difficult since we have to keep track to what he may be referring as he jumps from the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim to the modern generically subjective English one giants.
He notes that Gen 6:4, “connects the appearance of giants to a spiritual rebellion in the heavenly realm.” He told us about giants in Gen 6 but there is nothing in that whole chapter—or whole book—about intimidating size of anyone, much less of Nephilim.
Of course, next up is, “in Numbers 13:33, Israel’s spies report that giants still dwelled in the land. Their exaggerated fear—‘we seemed like grasshoppers’—shows both the imposing stature of these beings and Israel’s lack of faith…their size…”
Again, that is not the generic, “Israel’s spies report” in fact, it is the second report in that chapter, the first of which is the factually accurate one—and it lists six people groups they saw in the land but does not mention Nephilim, “the descendants of Anak…The Amalekites…The Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites…And the Canaanites.”
It is a mere assertion that, “exaggerated” still evidences, “imposing stature” since every indication is that their (supposed) imposing stature was the exaggeration. And that is because both sides of Nephilim’s parentage looked just like human beings and so subjective average size is implied.
Pastor Anthony Delgado then abruptly asserts, “Other passages mention related groups such as the Rephaim, Anakim, and Emim, tribes remembered for their unusual strength and stature (Deuteronomy 2–3). Goliath of Gath, defeated by David in 1 Samuel 17, stands as the most famous example.”
That those are, “related groups” is not only a mere assertion, it is another case of that which is illogical, ill-bio-logical, and ill-theo-logical. And, it is not even really a case of those, plural, since Emmim is just an a.k.a. for Rephaim and Anakim were like a clan of the Rephaim tribe.
As for, “unusual…stature” well, sure, Deut 2 tells us that they were, “tall” subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
As for Goliath well, sure, he too was of subjectively of, “unusual…stature” since the Masoretic text has Goliath at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. so, that is the preponderance of the earliest data—even though the pastor did not tell us anything about Goliath’s height, especially within the context of evidencing his usage of giants.
He ends the article with, “Bible Verses about Giants”:
Genesis 6:4 – “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days…”
Numbers 13:33 – “We seemed like grasshoppers in our own sight.”
Deuteronomy 2:10–11 – “The Emim formerly lived there, a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim.”
Deuteronomy 3:11 – “Only Og the king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim.”
Joshua 11:21–22 – “Joshua cut off the Anakim from the hill country…”
1 Samuel 17:4 – “There came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath.”
2 Samuel 21:20 – “There was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature…”
Psalm 135:10–11 – “He struck down many nations and killed mighty kings—Sihon king of the Amorites, and Og king of Bashan.”
Amos 2:9 – “Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars.”
Colossians 2:15 – “He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame.”
Let us review:
Genesis 6:4 – reliably about Nephilim but no physical description.
Numbers 13:33 – unreliably about Nephilim with an unreliable physical description.
Deuteronomy 2:10–11 – about Rephaim who were taller than 5.0-5.3ft.
Deuteronomy 3:11 – about one Repha for whom we do not have a physical description.
Joshua 11:21–22 – about Rephaim/Anakim.
1 Samuel 17:4 – about one just shy of 7ft. Repha.
2 Samuel 21:20 – about one Repha of subjectively, “great stature.”
Psalm 135:10–11 – About an Amorites and a Repha for whom we do not have a physical description.
Amos 2:9 – it reads, “the Amorite…whose height was like the height of the cedars and who was as strong as the oaks; I destroyed his fruit above and his roots beneath.” He was clearly just saying they were big and strong and not implying conducting a one-to-one ratio based mathematical calculation.
In fact, people who do measure cedars and claim Amorites were that tall never get around to a calculation correlating the strength of oaks—since they are only interested in tall-tales. Plus, if they take it that incoherently literal then they have to conclude that Amorites had fruits and roots growing right out of their bodies.
Colossians 2:15 – irrelevant to Pastor Delgado’s usage of giants.
Next up is the article Giants Reappeared After the Flood wherein he notes, “The reappearance of giants after the Flood” but since his usage is not biblical then he must mean the reappearance of personages who are generically subjectively taller than the parochial average by an unknown margin after the Flood.
Of course, that is a non-issue since if Adam was even one inch taller than Eve then there have always been people who were subjectively taller than other people.
Thus, we have to assume that, this time around, he is referring to Nephilim in particular.
He premises the article by noting, “While the Genesis account focuses on the Nephilim before the Flood, later biblical narratives describe giant clans in the land of Canaan—most notably the Anakim, Rephaim, and others—who opposed Israel during the conquest.” Note the linguistics goalpost moving, again, even within one single sentence, “Nephilim before the Flood, later biblical narratives describe giant clans in the land of Canaan.
As for, “Anakim, Rephaim, and others” we will see just how that is not the case.
But first, he noted:
The Bible does not explain exactly how giants reappeared, leading to various interpretations. Some suggest the Flood was regional rather than global, leaving pockets of giants alive. Others propose that similar supernatural events to those in Genesis 6:1–4 occurred again after the Flood.
Regardless of the mechanism, their reemergence is a reminder that the spiritual rebellion which began before the Flood persisted into Israel’s history.
See the ongoing problem? We were left having to guess as to what he was referring by, “how giants reappeared”?
The scope of the flood is irrelevant to Nephilology since they either did not make it past the flood because it was global or because they lived in the flooded region: either way, they did not make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.
We are told five times who survived the flood but Nephilim are not in any of those statements (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5).
That, “similar supernatural events…occurred again after the Flood” is not only wholly unevidenced but, as with the local flood theory, they imply that God failed, missed a loophole, and the flood was much of a waste.
His, “Biblical Evidence for Post-Flood Giants” begins with, “Genesis 6:4 states, ‘The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward,’ a phrase that hints at their later reappearance.” Indeed, when one cuts a verse—a sentence, a complete thought—in half (especially at the key point at which it was going to tell us to what days it is referring) then one can follow that up by merely opining about a subjective hint.
Yet, the complete verse/statement/thought is, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”
Thus, “those days” were when the sons and daughters first married, mated, and birthed (with the commencing timeline being given in v. 1 as, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose”) and so, “afterward” meant just that, after they first did so (they kept doing so) yet, that is still all pre-flood.
His next stop is, “Numbers 13:33 explicitly connects the Anakim to the pre-Flood Nephilim: ‘We even saw the Nephilim there—the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim.’” Here, he not only tells us that a citation, “explicitly connects” but he myopically relies on non-LXX versions since that version’s version of that verse does not even mention Anakim—unsure why he did not mention that.
Oddly, Pastor Delgado ends up rightly distinguishing, “The fearful report of the spies in Numbers 13:31–33 shows how giants could paralyze God’s people with unbelief. In contrast, Caleb and Joshua’s trust in God’s power points to the faith required to overcome” (emphasis added for emphasis) but fails to interact with the chapter’s (and chap 14’s) narrative to the point of rightly dividing God’s word.
He then lists how, “The Bible mentions several post-Flood giant peoples” at which point he seems to have, yet again, changed his usage from appearing to refer to Nephilim to now referring to generically subjectively taller than the parochial average by an unknown margin:
Anakim – Tall warriors living in Canaan (Deuteronomy 9:2).
Rephaim – A race of giants inhabiting various regions (Deuteronomy 2:10–11).
Emim and Zamzummim – Other giant groups dispossessed by Israel’s neighbors (Deuteronomy 2:20–21).
Og of Bashan – A giant king whose bed was over thirteen feet long (Deuteronomy 3:11).
All of those are about Rephaim and sure, they were taller than 5.0-5.3ft.
Just in case, as for Og: again, we do not have a physical description of him and merely assuming that his, “bed” tells us something about his personal size is a non-sequitur based on various assumptions. In fact, it was a ritual object, not something upon which he slept—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
He then circles back to add details to, “Recognize the Possible Explanations for Their Return. Because the Flood narrative describes the destruction of all flesh except those in the ark, the reappearance of giants requires explanation.”
He notes that, “Common views include” that they were, “Survivors of a Regional Flood – Suggests the Flood’s scope was not global, allowing giant populations in other regions to survive” which, again, contradicts the Bible five times.
Or, “Repeated Angelic Rebellion – Proposes that events similar to Genesis 6 occurred again, producing a new generation of giants” which is just a fantasy story post-flood Nephilologists invented when they realized they had zero biblical data.
Also, “Symbolic or Legendary Continuity – Suggests that later giant accounts use the Nephilim as an archetype for formidable enemies” which may be fair enough in terms of that the unreliable guys whom God rebuked after their unfaithful disloyalty resulted in a tall-tale about post-flood Nephilim. Yet, if, “later giant accounts use the Nephilim as an archetype for formidable enemies” why is there only one single such example in the whole entire Bible?
Pastor Anthony Delgado gives up, in a manner of speaking, with, “the Bible does not settle the question” which is most certainly does: only 8 personages survived the flood, God did not fail, did not miss a loophole, the flood was not much of a waste, centuries post-flood some guys who contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible made up a fear-mongering, scare-tactic fantasy, “Don’t go in the woods!!!” style of tall-tale and were rebuked by God—end of biblical story.
For many more details, see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Thus, when Pastor Delgado tells us of, “The book of Joshua records that Israel encountered the Anakim during the conquest of Canaan” that is irrelevant to Nephilology.
And, “David faced Goliath” is irrelevant to Nephilology.
And, “David’s men later killed other giant warriors” is irrelevant to Nephilology.
And, “Each defeat of a giant” is irrelevant to Nephilology.
Rather, those are relevant to generically subjectively taller than the parochial average by an unknown margin generically subjectively taller than the parochial average by an unknown margin—and I am still quite unsure how that is any sort of issue.
This article ends with, “Bible Verses about Giants after the Flood”:
Genesis 6:4 – “The Nephilim were on the earth both in those days and afterward, when the sons of God came to the daughters of mankind, who bore children to them. They were the powerful men of old, the famous men.”
Numbers 13:33 – “We even saw the Nephilim there—the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim. To ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and we must have seemed the same to them.”
Deuteronomy 2:10–11 – “The Emim, a great and numerous people, as tall as the Anakim, had previously lived there. They were also regarded as Rephaim, like the Anakim, though the Moabites called them Emim.”
Deuteronomy 2:20–21 – “This too was regarded as the land of the Rephaim. The Rephaim had previously lived there, though the Ammonites called them Zamzummim, a great and numerous people, tall as the Anakim. The LORD destroyed the Rephaim at the advance of the Ammonites, who drove them out and settled in their place.”
Deuteronomy 3:11 – “Only King Og of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. His bed was made of iron. Isn’t it in Rabbah of the Ammonites? It is thirteen and a half feet long and six feet wide by a standard measure.”
Joshua 14:12 – “Now give me this hill country the LORD promised me on that day, because you heard then that the Anakim are there, as well as large fortified cities. Perhaps the LORD will be with me and I will drive them out as the LORD promised.”
1 Samuel 17:4 – “Then a champion named Goliath, from Gath, came out from the Philistine camp. He was nine feet, nine inches tall.”
1 Samuel 17:45 – “David said to the Philistine, ‘You come against me with a sword, spear, and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD of Armies, the God of the ranks of Israel—you have defied him.’”
2 Samuel 21:20 – “At Gath there was another huge man who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot—twenty-four in all. He, too, was descended from the giant.”
2 Samuel 21:22 – “These four were descended from the giant in Gath and were killed by David and his soldiers.”
Review:
Genesis 6:4 – about Nephilim for whom we have no reliable physical description and not about post-flood.
Numbers 13:33 – a non-LXX version of an unreliable fantasy tall-tale.
Deuteronomy 2:10–11 – subjectively tall Rephaim.
Deuteronomy 2:20–21 – subjectively tall Rephaim.
Deuteronomy 3:11 – about a man for whom we do not have a physical description and a ritual object.
Joshua 14:12 – subjectively tall Rephaim/Anakim.
1 Samuel 17:4 – a just shy of 7ft. Repha.
1 Samuel 17:45 – no reference to even being subjectively tall.
2 Samuel 21:20 – subjectively, “huge man” (note how Pastor Delgado changed from the version he previously quoted) with, “huge” being just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as, “tall”—and biblically contextually, “descended from the giant” means, “descended from the Repha.”
2 Samuel 21:22 – same as above.
Next up is the article The Spirits of Dead Giants Became Demons which I will go through very succinctly since it is premised on:
According to the ancient Jewish worldview preserved in works like 1 Enoch, the death of the giants—offspring of the rebellious Watchers and human women—did not end their destructive influence. While the Flood and other divine judgments removed them from the physical world, their spirits were believed to remain earthbound…they became wandering, unclean spirits—what we now call demons…This understanding, common in Second Temple Judaism…
Recall that ancient is a subjective term and that 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from the Second Temple Judaism which is 538 BC-70 CE.
In short then, that demons are the spirits of dead Nephilim is just folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
And we have come to a portion of the article A Biblical Symbology of Clowns: The Clown on My Wall. Initially, I noted, “Nephilim giants and clowns which are all issues that are right up my alley” since I have familiarized myself with over two millennia worth of relevant data that I used to write my dozen, or so, Nephilology books one of which is Did the Nephilim Look Like Clowns? A Review of Paul Stobbs’ Theory as well as A Worldview Review of Stephen King’s “It”: The Mystical, Mysterious, and Metaphysical in the Novel, Miniseries, and Movies.
He notes:
Clowns embody contradiction and inversion, acting as cultural symbols that expose the boundaries and hypocrisies of human systems through humor, discomfort, and absurdity.
Though often feared, their purpose is not malevolence but revelatory: clowns function as sacred fools or prophetic tricksters who disrupt social order to reveal truth.
Historically rooted in the role of the jester, the clown occupies the space between order and chaos, revealing hidden realities and confronting tyranny by returning overextended structures to a state of potential.
He elucidated:
Are Nephilim Clowns?
This question is clearly driven by the terror that people experience (because of whatever kind of trauma) related to clowns. The question could really take two forms:
Are Clowns Nephilim?
Are Nephilim Clowns?
The responses to these questions are not the same, though the answer to both is invariably ‘no.’
He then unpacks each:
Are Clowns Nephilim?
In Biblical Theology, the Nephilim are the giant offspring of the sons of God (Watchers, rebellious angels) and human women. These giants are depicted as tyrannical leaders of earthly tribes and kingdoms: Og of Bashan, Goliath of Gath, Anak the progenitor of the Anakites,…(Hercules?).
In the Hebrew folklore, specifically, the Enochic literature, the giants have ravenous appetites, ruling the people with an iron fist, demanding to feed, even on human flesh. They are in every way tyrants who order their societies around their own lusts, hungers, and thirsts.
Here he has it that, “Nephilim are the giant offspring” which biblically contextually means, “Nephilim are the Nephilim offspring” so he is watering down terminology by his misusage which is the only thing that allows him to correlate data points that have nothing to do with each other such as mashing Nephilim together with, “Og of Bashan, Goliath of Gath, Anak” and even, “(Hercules?).”
“In the Hebrew folklore” the sky’s the limit, see my article How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.
Interestingly, he notes, “their fathers, the fallen angels now chained in Tartarus” which is what ought to have alerted him that the, “similar supernatural events…occurred again after the Flood” is a non-issue. Again, Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days, etc. now, while they do not specify when they were incarcerated, since the flood was when God was cleaning house, as it were, just pre-flood or intra-flood would be the logical time when they were incarcerated.
He then notes, “A Case Study: You may ask how ‘evil clowns’ fit into this paradigm. Take Stephen King’s It, a horror novel about a group of children who are terrorized by a malevolent, shape-shifting entity that most often appears as a clown named Pennywise.” And the concept of trickster spirits has been around, by any other name, for millennia. Such is part of the dark side of clownery.
Thus, continuing:
Are Nephilim Clowns?
Nephilim can only be clowns in a Gnostic world. Gnosticism, though not a defined system of thought, tends to see the world as polarized between good and evil and ultimately is antimaterialist, seeing the ultimate reality of life, not about the physical universe, but about eternal spiritual realities.
And King’s It is a straight up Gnostic tale indeed.
As for Nephilim and clows well, the concept that clowns’ appearance (and clowns have varies very greatly from time to time and culture to culture) is premise on how Nephilim looked it an utterly incoherent fantasy.
In fact, as admitted by Stobbs, this all began when he had a flashback after years of using and abusing hardcore hallucinogenic drugs.
The claim that Nephilim looked like clowns is based on a miscomprehension of the relevant linguistics, reliance on faulty sources, folklore, and mere assertions.
His Nephilology is literally 100% un-biblical.
As for whether there are some aspects of some versions of some clows that can be correlated to Nephilim due to being contra God’s created order and such well, sure, yet, that is too generic—we might as well say that the dark side of clowns is based on Satan himself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply